Batman #251

[cyberghostface]

"The question was 'what do we do with the Joker?' Do we make him the same way he was? Kind of silly... yeah, we have to do that. Can we make him more deadly? Actually, he was pretty deadly back in the old days. Why don't we just do the Joker? Maybe a little bit more deadly, but really, the old Joker was pretty darn good. So, we introduced the Joker in that one comic book and everybody re-fell in love with the Joker." -- Neal Adams

Comments

[lego_joker]

It's only now I realize how deliberate a homage this was to Joker's debut in Batman #1, right down to Batman muscling his way through a cloud of Joker venom (though with an updated justification: "I took an antidote beforehand" probably flies better than "he's just that tough, duh!" to any reader over the age of eight).

There's also something to be admired in how O'Neil tries to modernize the Joker with the contemporary 'must' in supervillainy, the Bond Villain. Now, I think he went way too damn far with Ra's (whom I will despise to my dying breath as a pretender), but here it's done with decent balance: the shark tank, the business suit...

(Standard whine about why-oh-WHY did Adams have to recolor this, soft-shading does not work on Bronze-Age art.)

[icon_uk]

I'd never considered them to be that comparable, since offing his old gang, doesn't seem to have quite the same vibe to it as announcing the murder of multiple influential people in advance, just to showcase how effectively lethal he is.

[alicemacher]

A classic story, which should not be blamed for the eventual emergence of the tedious, constantly murdering, constantly nihilism-preaching Joker we know today. While O'Neill makes Joker a killer once more, after decades of essentially harmless pranks, he preserves some of the character's old-time wacky methods (the shark tank) and his casual wit (I especially like "It's my most charming trait!"). Also, the reversal of the usual roles, in the last two panels, is clever, and one which few writers have tried since (a notable exception being Batman's hilarious "...puddin'" taunt in Mad Love).

[mazway_75]

There's a bit of Joker tracking down a former gang member giving him a cigar, the guy laughing "one of your exploding ones, right?" Joker chuckles as he leaves...just as the guy's apartment blows up. Dark but fitting for him.

[icon_uk]

I think "Nihilist-kill'em-all" Joker didn't really surface until many, many years after this.

"The Dark Knight Returns" and "A Death in the Family" are where he first appears I think, but before then we had the likes of "The Laughing Fish" and Dreadful Birthday Dear Joker"

[lego_joker]

IIRC, "The Laughing Fish" served as something of a missing link between old-school Joker and "Nihilist kill-em-all" Joker - there's a pivotal (though often overlooked) part where Batman says the Joker is always looking to hurt people first and foremost and the copyright-fish scheme is just a thinly-veiled excuse.

[owlbrigade1]

Exactly. You said it far better than I did, below.

[owlbrigade1]

I'm not commenting specifically on this issue, but this quote really sums up the problem I have with so many nu takes and reboots of stuff:

" Actually, he was pretty deadly back in the old days"

It is basically "remember back before this character/got popular, lets do the stuff that didn't make it into their popularity". Then 9 times out of 10 they end up ranting about why their reboot didn't work and it got panned. It is because they left out the popular stuff that people enjoyed.

I'm not entirely convinced that it hasn't turned out that way with the ever increasing murderousness of The Joker, not to mention the ever decreasing amount of joking (just having a mad laugh is not the same as actually joking) he does too. I don't mind the Joker killing people, but the idea he is always some sort of murdering nihilist is just wrong. He kills when it is funny, he commits crime when it is funny, and he is absolutely the kind of guy who sees no difference in a months long plan to rob a bank in a funny way and the same amount of planning in robbing a kid's lemonade stand (and then he pays the kid for a glass of lemonade after robbing him too).

[wizardru]

It is basically "remember back before this character/got popular, lets do the stuff that didn't make it into their popularity". Then 9 times out of 10 they end up ranting about why their reboot didn't work and it got panned. It is because they left out the popular stuff that people enjoyed.

In some cases that's likely true, but not here. In this case, you have a creator talking about revitalizing a character that had, due to changes forced on the industry by a moral panic, effectively bowdlerized multiple characters to the point they was no longer considered interesting, cool or relevant. In the midst of bringing Batman back to his roots (and removing the kitschy 50s cruft), they had to decide what to do with the Joker, long considered Batman's arch-enemy. If you have a suddenly much more grounded and street-smart Batman, you need to make the Joker something more than a prop-comic with a gun to make him a credible threat. In this case, that's what they did. The Joker is dangerous, but in a one-on-one fight, he's no match for Batman; his danger is his methods, his planning and his cruel insanity.

The problem with the Joker is that many writers feel the need (and this dramatically ramped up after the successes of Miller/Moore/Vertigo) feel the need to 'up the ante' in terms of these characters. It's a steady escalation that gets ridiculous over time, IMHO.

[blues32]

Well, yeah. Who would steal lemonade? Joker has to have SOME measure of standards. Even if he paid for the glass with the money he just stole.